OSNews

I don't think software patents are involved here.

Some of the patents may cover software, software controls stuff like multitouch, one of the patents (which is why, in spite of the G1 hardware allowing it, Google didn't do multitouch) as does hardware.

Nope. Not when Palm has hired away iPhone engineers from Apple with $200K+ signing bonuses..

Trevor Baylis invented (and patented) the clockwork radio

the radio was already invented, as was the winding mechanism

the 'invention' was still his to patent as he proposed a new way of using those technoligies together

If you belive the clockwork radio should be able to hold a patent then so should the multi-touch interface (existing technologies proposed to be used in a new 'invoative' way)

also prior art is very important part of a patent application

And how exaclty is the iphone innovatively using the multitouch technology as supposed to earlier innovations? Zooming in and out of image/maps etc has been done before, putting it on a smaller device is hardly innovative ...

the manner in which you pinch (or un-pinch?) on the screen for example, as far as im aware, that was not used in the same way before. Do you have an example where it has been?

As detailed in my example, the clockwork radio clearly indicated, you dont need to invent all the bits for it to be patented. You need only use the technology in a new way

So... If pinching can be patented... Does that mean I can patent moving my mouse to the "left" to move my "pointer" to the "left" of the "screen"?

I don't see a difference really.

You can try to patent it and your request will be rejected.

If you are really interested in knowing your facts (are you?), you should google a little bit to know which patents Apple has registered on the iPhone UI or hardware.

AFAIK, they have claimed to have 200+ patents which HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED.

You can argue whether patents are a good thing or not, but I don't see why other company would be allowed to sue over patent infringment and not Apple.

And I'm sure Palm has many patents too and would sue any company if necessary.

The patent on doubly linked lists has been accepted as well:
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7028023/fulltext.html
It was accepted in ... 2006!
I learned linked lists in 1997 and they exist since the 70's or before...
It does not mean it is enforceable. It does just mean that no one bothered enough to go and show them the prior art. The patent just stands there and will be invalidated the first time someone tries to sue with it. It happened many times with other frivolous patents. The patent office accepts almost anything and they invalidate it afterwards when someone come to invalidate it.

Edited 2009-01-22 14:52 UTC

So... If pinching can be patented... Does that mean I can patent moving my mouse to the "left" to move my "pointer" to the "left" of the "screen"? I don't see a difference really. "


the mouse has become ubiquitous BUT dont forget someone DID invent the 'move mouse right, pointer moves right' functionality. The inventor (in my opinion) should have the right to protect that invention and the r+d invested into its creation (this is primarily served by patents and copyright)

Remember that with all patents, if you can prove prior art then that patent becomes void

if you can find an example where "apple's pinch" was used before (as described in the patent) please publish it

Macworld previously had a feature on apple taking advantage of this patent 'way back' in 2007
http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?RSS&NewsID=18340

It is not only prio art that invalidates a patent. Obviousness does also invalidate a patent.
Let say I get an effective way to track eye movements with a webcam. I could patent the idea to use this eye tracker as a pointing device, but this would quickly be invalidated. Not because of prior art (I'm the first to track eye, so I'm the first who can use that as a pointing device), but because it is obvious.

How is "pinching", or even a camera tracking your eye movements, obvious? Especially "pinching" - give me one example of an object that you can you can increase in size or scale through the pinching motion.

your statment is correct that in the US a patent must be "non-obvious"

your example however was a poor one as it is not 'obvious' to track your eyes to move a pointer

a better example would be along the lines of a patent 'for using a pencil to write'

No you couldn't. Ideas are not patentable, implementations are.

Here is a history of multi-touch: http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html

Please see the last entry for the year 1991, "Digital Desk." The second paragraph reads, "Clearly demonstrated multi-touch concepts such as two finger scaling and translation of graphical objects, using either a pinching gesture or a finger from each hand, for example."

The Digital Desk pinching gesture preceded the Iphone by over 15 years.

By the way, note two entries down the "Simon" touch phone.

Also, to get a sense of multi-touch history, note that the first multi-touch system was the "Flexible Machine Interface" of 1982 (two years before the first Mac).

In addition, watch Jeff Han scale items on his multi-touch display at this February, 2006 Ted presentation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwGAKUForhM&feature=PlayList&p=2CB30...

The first scaling pinch occurs at 02:46, and he specifically mentions scaling with two fingers on a hand at 03:06. This is almost one full year before the Iphone.

Furthermore, multi-touch on handheld devices is obvious and was not invented by Apple. Here is an article regarding a Nintendo multi-touch patent that was granted on February 2, 2006 (again, almost one year prior to the Iphone): http://www.joystiq.com/2006/02/26/patent-application-reveals-ninten...

Patents for multi-touch gestures (by Apple and others) are ridiculous, as the of advantage most of these interactions became obvious very early in the development of multi-touch systems.

Edited 2009-01-22 22:21 UTC

His ‘invention’ was a better method of producing energy from winding. That is the only thing that his patent should be able to cover.

If you invent another method for doing the same thing, it’s a new invention and not covered…

At least, that’s the original intention of patents

There's also the little bit about there being actual hardware schematics to precisely describe and show what was done here.

It's very arguable that these "multi touch" patents are algorithm only.

Why should touchpad manufacturers be punished by apple choosing to limit how their touchpads are used? Where's the innovation in that?

And how would a company be motivated to manufacture *anything* if some other company can patent how the device is used and lock out their potential customer base?

Edited 2009-01-22 19:40 UTC

So perhaps Palm holds a patent for "copy-paste functionality on a handheld device"? That would explain a lot.

Don't know why you are getting modded down.

That's an obvious application of existing technology, especially considering the release of the first completely touch phone in 1992 and considering that Nintendo was granted a patent for a hand-held multi-touch device in February of 2006 (almost one year before the Iphone).

Apple (or any other company) should not be able to patent something so obvious, regardless of the work they put into it.

Most patent offices are hopelessly overburdened with lots and lots of applications. That's why so many 'inventions' are granted with a patent in spite of prior art.

Here's a relevant quote from that seminal book on Interaction Design, Alan Cooper's The Inmates are Running the Asylum:

"If, as a designer, you do something really, fundamentally, blockbuster correct, everybody looks at it and says, 'Of course! What other way would there be?' This is true even if the client has been staring, empty-handed and idea-free, at the problem for months or even years without a clue about solving it.... Most really breakthrough conceptual advances are opaque in foresight and transparent in hindsight. It is incredibly hard to see breakthroughs in design. You can be trained and prepared, spend hours studying the problem, and still not see the answer. Then someone else comes along and points out a key insight, and the vision clicks into place with the natural obviousness of the wheel. If you shout the solution from the rooftops, others will say, 'Of course the wheel is round! What other shape could it possibly be?' This makes it frustratingly hard to show off good design work."

Few know this better than Cooper, a pioneer in the field of interaction design with an immense portfolio of clients. So whether or not you agree that Apple's innovations should be patentable (as a matter of fact I feel it's worse for "the greater good" as it tends to balkanize interaction paradigms across vendors and thus make end-users' lives harder), the fact is that you cannot objectively assess their level of obviousness.

This rudimentary idea is obvious in itself and is a revelation only to those who have no experience with creative endeavors. It is a notion that usually is comprehended early on in the career of anyone involved in any creative discipline (music, writing, photography, filmmaking, product design, choreography, architecture, etc. -- not just software interface design).

Also, if anyone qualifies to be described as "a pioneer in the field of interaction design," it would be Donald Norman, not Alan Cooper. Norman's expertise is much broader -- he has a lot more experience with the interaction between humans and all objects (not just software). With "The Psychology Of Everyday Things," Norman literally "wrote the book" on product usability.



Of course, you can.

There are many generic ideas for devices which cannot be achieved because of some limitation. We all want flying cars, teleportation and replicators, but right now they are impossible or impractical. However, just because these items have not been commercially produced, these ideas are still obvious.

In addition, there are many ideas which are easily achieved, but which have uncertain value/appeal. Manufacturers have given us the refrigerator computer, the inside-the-egg-shell scrambler, and the "Bark Stop Professional": http://www.seenontv.com/prod-pages/lentek_bark_free.html

The multi-touch cellphone is a combination of these two types of ideas. The concept was out there and obvious. However, the production of a multi-touch phone was delayed, because, until recently, touchscreen phones have not been powerful enough to handle the software, and due to the dismal appeal of past touch-screen phones, manufacturers were reluctant to sink funds into the development and tooling of a multi-touch version.

Furthermore, the verdict is still out on the advantages/drawbacks of multi-touch phones and of touch-phones in general.

Edited 2009-01-23 17:52 UTC

Apple's innovation is not that it championed the idea of a a multi-touch phone. It's much more about the little tweaks Apple put in to enhance usability. The way a flick on lists makes them scroll, and bounce back when they have reached the end... the way every app opening has a transition to let the user know what's going on... the way the screen automatically changes orientation when the accelerometer senses the phone is tilted sideways... the way the phone's screen turns off and the touch-screen locks when the proximity sensor detects that you're holding it to your face... the "slide to unlock" mechanism.... the way the onscreen keyboard senses which keys you're trying to press, even though the keys look like they're going to be too small... The way webpages are presented in desktop format and are easily zoomable via pinching or double-tapping... the way SMSes are presented as conversation threads... "visual voice mail"... These were all firsts with the iPhone.

True, the animation bits were limited somewhat on other platforms by lack of investment in technology on the part of other manufacturers... but most of the reason no one else did this stuff is simple complacency, and the notion that "this is as good as it gets".

The iPhone is a usability tour de force... Are you too blind to see that?

Edited 2009-01-24 08:59 UTC

Okay. So you admit that Apple did not invent the multi-touch phone. We are making progress.

Other fanboys: Did you get that? Please never again claim nor imply that Apple invented the multi-touch phone. Thanks!



This feature could have originated with Apple, and it is certainly an interesting animation (like wobbly windows, and the rotating cube), but does it actually add anything to the usability of the device?



Are you implying that Apple invented opening app feedback?



Apple did not invent auto-rotate. That feature appeared on digital cameras years before the Iphone. Heck, I remember auto-rotating computer monitors in the late 1980s.



Apple did not invent this feature. This problem has been solved in different ways since the first fully touch-screen phone appeared in 1992.

Here is a 2003, Nokia patent application for locking the touch-screen on a phone during an active call: http://www.patentstorm.us/applications/20050079896/fulltext.html



Don't know to what you are referring, but it certainly sounds generic.



Over the years, there has been a lot of non-Apple research into this problem. Probably, the best solution is to just make the buttons bigger with a horizontal keyboard.



I doubt that the Iphone is the first hand-held device to display web pages in such a manner. Even if it were so, how innovative is it to merely copy what we have seen on our computers every day since 1993?

In regards to multi-touch, pinch scaling, that was first shown in 1991 in the Digital Desk system.



You really think Apple invented these?

My friend tried visual voice mail on one of my messages, and he called back, asking, "what did you mean by 'eat up Martha?'"



Whatever.



Yes. The lack of cut-and-paste is an usability triumph.

Furthermore, it is an ergonomic breakthrough to have to tap nine times through the alternate keypad to merely create an ellipsis (...).

No one is claiming that any one individual behavior is revolutionary..... Ever heard the phrase "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts"?

Obviously you're not going to be won over as you have too much anti-Apple bias. Whatever. No other smartphone delivered the same level of user experience at the time the iPhone came out. This may seem like a subjective opinion, but it is the main reason the iPhone is so successful and all touch phones that came before it were such duds.

Ever heard of the phrase, "huh?"

You listed ten Iphone features, and then you claimed: "These were all firsts with the iPhone."

I pointed out that eight of those features appeared first on non-Apple products. I questioned the benefits of one of the features that might have originated with Apple. In regards to the other one, I said that I am not familiar with that feature, but I that it sounds generic.

You also claimed: "The iPhone is a usability tour de force..." Disregarding the Iphone's lack of tactile feedback, I mentioned just two of the Iphone's rather significant usability drawbacks.



Whether or not I have a bias has nothing to do with the fact that Apple did not invent most of the Iphone features (as demonstrated above).

By the way, I do not have an anti-Apple bias. I do have an "anti Apple-fanboy" bias, especially when a fanboys ignore the facts presented.

By the way, I would have thought that if you've read Norman's book The Psychology of Everyday Things you would have realized the obviousness of the obviousness paradox. That was practically the whole point of Norman's book: that what you classify as the only obvious and sensible solution is regardless implemented in a suboptimal way everywhere you go. Hence the solution is apparently not so obvious after all. Hence you can't objectively judge the level of obviousness....

Edited 2009-01-24 09:17 UTC

Exactly. Palm has hire Apple employees that worked on the iPod/iPhone and the Pre from what I've seen in videos is heavily influenced by the iPhone in more ways than one. So Apple may have just reason to cover their bases as in case Palm actually inadvertently infringed on their technology (regardless of innovation or not)due to former employees being involved with this new device.

I had a feeling this was going to happen the minute I saw the Pre in action, the fact the things like scrolling through pages works almost exactly like the iPhone, definitely puts up a red flag. Knowing Apple they are not looking to license any of their technology and I don't think Palm could survive Apple's full attention and weight if sued.

Good thing innovation is not the only determining factor with IP. If it had been, Palm, should have done something when other vendors started using its innovative touchscreen method for inputing data into a smartphone. But since they did not and instead let everyone else play it would be small of Apple to persue thwarting the Palm Pre at this point.

They can afford to do both

But instead of expecting Apple to put anything you need on the iPhone, you should purchase a phone which has all the features you need and stop complaining about the so-called iPhone missing features.

And FYI, the iPhone has an excellent multi-tasking capability. Apple just forbid third party application to use it.

Edited 2009-01-22 14:46 UTC

Hahaha, yep. Those features aren't missing, they're just... uh, resting. Pining for the fjords, if you will.

Yes, but the phone that fill my needs will be sued by APPLE

"But instead of expecting Apple to put anything you need on the iPhone, you should purchase a phone which has all the features you need and stop complaining about the so-called iPhone missing features."


but that's what I'm saying. Apple should lay off the new Palm because they're giving consumers what we want.

Apple is a company. That means they want to make money. And that means they are not different.

I am amazed at how many people think Apple is "different". Yes, they have some great and innovative people, but that's it.

Send yours to me. I'll be glad to develop on it.

Haha...

:)

Thanks for making me smile, though...

:)

The plastic PowerMac G4 is somehow different from the plastic iMac?

Edited 2009-01-22 23:15 UTC

Yes, the solid plastic of G4/400 always worked...

What are you talking about having to pay to use iChat? You don't need a .mac/MobileMe account to use it....

Edited 2009-01-23 15:29 UTC

From what I've read, Apple has always been silly. And it will bite them in the ass again.

There's the rub. RIM has deep enough pockets to fight. Palm is on the ropes, and the Pre is their lifeline if they manage to succeed. Maybe they're just bitter about the Palm Pilot succeeding where the Newton failed, and they're looking for revenge....

It shames me that I love my iPhone as much as I do, because I generally disdain many of Apple's business practices. The iPhone isn't cutting edge and I'd hesitate to call it innovative more than evolutionary; it has many faults and doesn't really do anything revolutionary that other mobile platforms couldn't do, Apple basically managed to pull together many existing technologies and concepts together into a package that simply works well, which is something I'll admit that they generally have a remarkable ability to do. I'm still astounded that after all this time since it's introduction, the other major players have yet to produce a platform that appeals as much to average users. Certainly power users will point to some aspect of Android, Win Mobile, S60 or even BlackberryOS that is superior, but that's not the point. Apple broke ground and deserves credit for that.

The Pre was the first "iPhone killer" I've seen announced that actually piqued my interest. If it does what they claim it does, and works as well as the hype implies, I'll take a serious look at it. And for that I suppose I'm part of the reason that Apple would break their historical patents-are-for-defense approach and become aggressive. But it's still sad when well-heeled organizations choose the lower cost legal route for market protection rather than pouring resources into the innovation machine.

I wasn't a fan of Steve Jobs' style, but I wonder if Apple without him will become a case of the devil you know versus the devil you don't.

You do realize Apple was in the PDA business before Palm with the Newton, right?

Likewise, you do realize that Apple did not invent the touch-screen PDA -- the Sony PTC-300 (1991) preceded the Newton: http://www.sony.net/Fun/design/history/product/1990/ptc-300.html